It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Strange DNA of Tibet

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
An article on the web site for Discover magazine references a study in the journal Science, examining DNA differences between Tibetans and Han Chinese. The study indicates an unknown origin for the Tibetan phenotypes.

Modern TIbetan DNA and the Chinese group's DNA began diverging only about 3,000 years ago, yet the Tibetan group has adapted to living in extreme high-altitude conditions.

Scientists believe this ability stems from the amount of hemoglobin manufactured by the body, though it seems counterintuitive. High levels of hemoglobin increase the delivery of oxygen, but it also makes blood thicker which you would think would hinder oxygen transport.

This is related to why athletes train at higher altitudes in order to improve performance at lower altitudes. However, the Tibetan plateau reaches altitudes of 16,000 feet, much, much higher than typical human settlement.

Some scientists questions these findings, suggesting that the locale of the Tibetan group has been occupied by the same peoples for up to 21,000 years.

Discover magazine web site article

Sorry, for the interminable edit list ... obviously had an issue, but then I thought, "heck, let's go for the record books."

[edit on Aug 18, 2010 by Hadrian]

[edit on Aug 18, 2010 by Hadrian]

[edit on Aug 18, 2010 by Hadrian]

[edit on Aug 18, 2010 by Hadrian]

[edit on Aug 18, 2010 by Hadrian]

[edit on Aug 18, 2010 by Hadrian]

[edit on Aug 18, 2010 by Hadrian]

[edit on Aug 18, 2010 by Hadrian]

[edit on Aug 18, 2010 by Hadrian]




posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
good info!


i don't know much about the Tibetan culture, but I do know that they're full of spiritually/physically in-tune people. they probably knew that mountains have always (in esoteric circles) been considered sacred and told to give "powers" to people who live/train there. nature is providing.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Hadrian
 


I wonder if there has been a little massaging of the data by the Chinese geneticists at the Beijing Genomic s Institute- at the behest of State interests.

A possibility considering the political implications ...






[edit on 18-8-2010 by UmbraSumus]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I wouldn't trust any DNA study coming out of China in this regard, they've been trying to prove Tibet is a part of China so they can culturally obliterate them.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I must be confused. I thought this was, essentially, an "American"-authored study on information based on genome scanning from representative members of the Han and Tibetan "ethnic" groups.

I would imagine that the Americans didn't rely on genetic information provided by the Chinese government. (Though I don't have access to the actual full paper.)

I understand the relevance of the Chinese government's issues with Tibet, but I'm not so sure the stakes, in terms of proving a similarity or difference in the genotypes between Hans and Tibetans, would really be worth the effort to the government to bother even having an interest in getting involved.

Perhaps I'm wrong.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
It looked like a Chinese backed study, maybe it had a tie in with an American university?


The genetic structure of the peoples of Tibet is consistent with the geographical barriers and the languages they speak, a study led by researchers from Fudan University in Shanghai has shown1. The researchers found Tibetans are relatively similar to north Asians, but the small Deng minority in the Himalayan Mountains of southeast Tibet is unique.


The authors behind it all appear to be Chinese;

1. Department of Medicine, Tibet Nationality College, Xianyang, Shaanxi, China

2. State Key Laboratory of Genetic Engineering and MOE Key Laboratory of Contemporary Anthropology, School of Life Sciences and Institutes of Biomedical Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

3. Department of Genetics, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

4. Department of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Shaanxi, China

5. Tibet Occupational College of Technology, Tibet, China

6. School of Medicine, Tibet University, Tibet, China

7. CAS-MPG Partner Institute for Computational Biology, Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China

8. These authors contributed equally to this work.

I believe we're talking about the same study...



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Yeah, I'm not sure. I guess I'm derailing my own little thread, but I thought the authors of the study were:



1 Eccles Institute of Human Genetics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
2 Research Center for High-Altitude Medicine, Qinghai University Medical School, Xining, Qinghai 810001, People’s Republic of China.
3 Division of Hematology and Department of Pathology (ARUP), University of Utah School of Medicine and VAH, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
* The Research Center for High-Altitude Medicine initiated the research project and was primarily responsible for phenotyping and DNA collection.


Though I did notice the part about Qinghai University initiating the project and doing the phenotyping. I thought it was American led.

OK, I maybe still question the worth of intefering with the data, but who knows? I've been wrong before.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Hadrian
 


This one says it was done by a "team of Chinese and American researchers" but it doesn't say how the research was split.
news.sciencemag.org...



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   
It probably wouldn't matter who led the study, it's how you interpret the results.

I've read elsewhere the Chinese were interpreting the results as proof the Tibetans are related to Han Chinese, and sanctifying their obsession with the country.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


That's interesting. I guess I've incorrectly minimized the Chinese government's interests - which does seem to matter in that some of you are inferring quite a specific agenda. I wonder if the claim of relations applies to the 3,000 year old phenotype divergence? Or, are they implying an older or younger commonality?

Wouldn't one suppose that Hans and Tibetans share a common ancestry (due to their age and proximity)? ... or is the idea that some would argue they're completely different "races" and one was present long before the other? Which, as I mentioned, some scientists have suggested in claiming Tibetan residence of tens of thousands of years; though, Wikipedia indicates evidence has been uncovered that disputes this (unfortunately, it is not sourced).



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Make sure no one tells Hitler.

We wouldn't want him sending people to Tibet to look for the special race.

It is interesting that we do not feel we can trust 'Chinese' science because we are afraid of the political system causing them to be biased.

Everything seems to say "We don't trust the Chinese, we shouldn't trust the Chinese, We can't trust the Chinese..." but business...all it seems to do is trust the Chinese. Maybe we need to mind our own business.

Interesting article - thanks.


I understand if you go to Tibet, often you get altitude sickness. Some people never can handle it and have to leave.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by hadriana
 


Hey baby:

I think that's an interesting post. I was also surprised by the supposition that the Chinese government would be liable for undue influence ... say, as compared to studies conducted in the United States that the US government would find of import. That's not to suggest it isn't possible, likely or a fact. I just don't find the concept unique to non-American countries.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
I wouldn't trust any DNA study coming out of China in this regard, they've been trying to prove Tibet is a part of China so they can culturally obliterate them.


I think you make an interesting point, here... and Chinese scholars have been notorious for faking data (there's not a LOT of them doing it, but there have been some very high profile examples of it.) They are still operating under a fairly oppressive regime that may want "supporting" evidence for their "right" to swallow Tibet.

Earlier DNA studies showed they were similar to the Mongols (this was an American study of a limited number of people: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... )

Wikipedia says there were paleolithic people there some 21,000 years ago and that this population was replaced or absorbed by an incoming population from China about 3,000 years ago. Unfortunately, the supporting evidence for this is ALSO Chinese... so... I would classify it as a "gray area" for the nonce. :
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Earlier DNA studies showed they were similar to the Mongols (this was an American study of a limited number of people: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... )


From this paper, their DNA were similar to Mongoloids, not just Mongols. Mongoloids mean the race of east Asian, also including Chinese, Japanese and Koreans.

As the motto of this website is "Deny Ignorance", it is disappointing to see many posts are based on political ideology. In addition, if you read the original paper from Science, both the first author and corresponding author are Americans.

Anyway, according to current theory (haplogroup D3 if I remember correctly), Tibetans were migrated there from China. I thought it is a well known fact. The question should be "when". If you don't like the number 3000, then present something to refute it. Any archaeological site more than 3000-year-old should be enough.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by dreamspark

Originally posted by Byrd

Earlier DNA studies showed they were similar to the Mongols (this was an American study of a limited number of people: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... )


From this paper, their DNA were similar to Mongoloids, not just Mongols. Mongoloids mean the race of east Asian, also including Chinese, Japanese and Koreans.


Thanks for the correction -- my brain waffled with the "Mongoloid" label and wondered if it might be misconstrued. I should have said "east Asian", shouldn't I?


As the motto of this website is "Deny Ignorance", it is disappointing to see many posts are based on political ideology. In addition, if you read the original paper from Science, both the first author and corresponding author are Americans.


A fast glance on my part meant sloppy response, I guess. I looked for additional papers on the subject and found only a very few. I have to admit that DNA is something I don't know much about and need to know more about.


Anyway, according to current theory (haplogroup D3 if I remember correctly), Tibetans were migrated there from China. I thought it is a well known fact. The question should be "when". If you don't like the number 3000, then present something to refute it. Any archaeological site more than 3000-year-old should be enough.


I didn't probe into the Wikipedia article (just glanced at the references), and on brief (very) glance the claim of an older group living there that was assimilated by the immigrants seemed to be a reasonable claim.

I did find a scholar's site that indicates there was a deliberate effort on the part of the Chinese to destroy traces of the neolithic people:


In fact, during the Cultural Revolution some 30 years ago, many archaeological monuments along with ancient monasteries and other cultural sites were ruthlessly destroyed. The situation began to slowly improve when in 1976, the Beijing Academy of Sciences mounted an expedition to Tibet to collect Stone Age tools lieing on the surface. In the 1980’s, among the most notable work done by Chinese archaeologists was the excavation of the Neolithic villages of Karou in the Chamdo prefecture of eastern Tibet, and Chukhong located in the Lhasa valley.
www.tibetarchaeology.com...


The folks at UCLA seem to have more information about people living there before 1000 BC:
paleo.sscnet.ucla.edu...



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join